On 5/13/07, Jonathan LaCour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Noam wrote: > > >> I agree in principle, and this is why I always use `has_field` > >> rather than `with_fields`. > > > > [snip snip] > > > > By the way, what are the advantages of the with_fields way (if there > > aren't, except for a few saved keystrokes, I would say go and remove > > it - "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to > > do it.") > > There was some disagreement between the original authors on which syntax > we all liked best. In the end, we decided to put both in and let users > decide which they liked best. I started off in the `with_fields` camp, > and now firmly behind `has_field`. I wouldn't object to deprecating the > `with_fields` syntax personally, but I'd like to hear from Gaetan and > Daniel to see if either of their opinions have changed.
Well, I haven't, so I'm still in favor of has_field. > If there is any disagreement from Gaetan and Daniel, then I'd prefer > just to keep things as they are, even though I am in total agreement > with the OWTDI mantra from the Zen of Python. Same here. FWIW, most of the examples I've seen on the web using Elixir are using the "has_field" syntax. But, on the other side, in the initial reaction messages to our first announcement, it seemed like there was slightly more people in favor of the "with_fields" syntax. So I don't know if some of those people changed minds or if "has_field" people are more vocal on blogs :) -- Gaëtan de Menten http://openhex.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SQLElixir" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlelixir?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
